The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1887-12-14
THREE IMPORTANT DECISIONS.
Validity OF the Prohibition Law in
Kansas Affirmed.

The first opinion was read by Justice
Matthews, and was copcuEred in by all tie
other justices except Harlan. II susiains
is familiarly known Us the coupon case, y
and reyerses the position assumed towards
State authorities by the Circuit jude Bond.
who caused certain of them 20 be imprisoned
for disobeying restraining order forbidding
them to bring suits for the collection Of
of tax receivable coupons cut from State
bonds The Supreme Court in other words,
now decides that the Federal power cannot
be legally exercised to prevent the State Of
Virginia from pursuing any course she may
choose with regard to her State debt. which
was contract made, not by individuals
with individuals. but by outside individuals
with u Stale The imprisoned officials sre,
therefore. discharged and the effect of the
decision in the second place, upon the debt
question. will undoubtedly be to settle that
question finally and forever The English
creditors will now probably accept the SET
tlement offered them by the last Legislature
of Virginia, and thus end this vexaiious
matter
The other decision was of yet greater i'm
portance. sustaining. as it did, the constitu-
tionality of the prohibitory law of Kansas.
II will be remembered that this was regarded
as test case, involving the right Of State
or other community to pass laws calculated
30 break up an established business, like
that of liquor selling. II was claimed on be-
half of the liquor interest that in eases
where liquor sellers business had been in
terferred with by such laws, they were
entitled 10 compensation, and that prohibi
tory laws were unconstitutional because
they abridged the liberty of the citizen and
destroyed his property without due cause.
The Court held that the right ofdctermining
what measures are necessary for the preserva-
ton of the public morals, health and safely
had therefore been vested in the States by
the constitutional right given them under
the police power To regulate their own in
ternal concerns. The State of Kansas had
right to prohibit the liquor traffic. II did
not thereby take away the property of the
brewers. 1t simply abated nuisance The
property is not taken away from its owners; ;
they are only prohibited from using it for a
specific purpose which the Legislature de-
clared 80 be injurious to the community. If
the Supreme Court had sustained this claim
il is hardly possible 10 estimate the conse-
quences. The damages due 10 liquor sellers
in States where prohibtory laws have been
already enforced would have probably mount /
ed into hundreds of millions of dollars, in
volving many communities and States in
prospective bankruptcy the Prohibition (
party would have been given its coup de 1
grace, and there would have been Other i'm /
portant and far-reaching consequences But 1
the Supreme Court, it appears, decides the /
other way. 1t says-Justices Harlan de- /
hverins the opinion that a State, in the
exercise of lis police power, has a right TO
suppress the liquor traffic, ifit considers that I
tartiie subyersve of public peace or morality I
and that in that case the parties whose bust .
ness is injured have no claim to damage or
compensation. This will undoubtedly rank
in future aS notable decision and prece-
dent
In the case of William II. Council colored
VS.. the Western & Atlantic Railroad Com
pany, the interstate commerce commission
has decided that colored people may be
assigned separate cars ON equal terms, with
out disadvantage TO either race, aud with
increased comfort TO both thai The car
furnish colored people, who buy first class
tickets. accommodations equally safe and
comfortable with other first-class passen-
ger